Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.



And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.


--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:


60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile.